|
||
A Straight-Shooting Pastor
Whenever I write a column about guns, I get at least a few responses from people who don't call me names, who use proper grammar, and present their arguments in a reasonable manner. So when I heard that a pastor in Louisville, Kentucky had a "Bring Your Gun To Church Day" last Saturday (June 27th) I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. It wasn't easy.
(Before you start firing your angry emails at me, let me make a few things clear: I'm not saying this was illegal, and I'm not calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. I'm trying to understand why a pastor would want guns in church, because well, it seems a tad inappropriate to me).
I spoke to Pastor Ken Pagano of the New Bethel Church, and he seemed like a nice, intelligent guy who just happens to think guns are a very important American tradition, an excellent means of self-defense, and are not out of place in a church.
He pointed out to me that you could see paintings of ancient, medieval, and Revolutionary times in which people who were at church had weapons with them. I reminded him that there were many things that were done hundreds of years ago that aren't done today -- like sacrificing goats, having slaves, and avoiding baths.
I had read that people were supposed to bring unloaded guns to the church. He clarified this. If you didn't have a license to carry a concealed weapon, you could bring a "cold" (unloaded and holstered) gun. If you legally could carry a concealed weapon, of course, you could bring that gun.
Pastor Pagano said that since concealed weapons are concealed, he had no idea how many people in church were armed.
And all these guns make the pastor feel safer for his congregation. Obviously, it's an individual thing, but would you feel the calm and peace that you want in a house of worship, knowing that some of the people around you might be carrying hidden guns?
A house of worship is not just a building like any other, as Pagano implied before the gun gala. That's one of the reasons why when there is violence in a church, a synagogue, or a mosque that it may seem that much more disturbing to us than when it happens on the street or in a bar. A sanctuary is a special place. That's why they call it a sanctuary.
I'm no expert on Christianity, but I believe Jesus was known as the Prince of Peace, not the Prince of Carrying A Piece.
One of the purposes of the event was to celebrate the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. The pastor feels the church was an appropriate place to do that. I pointed out that since he loved the Constitution and American traditions so much, what about the "separation of church and state?" Is a church really an appropriate place for making a political statement about weapons?
Here's another thought: How would people have reacted if an Imam at an American mosque asked people to bring guns to a service? In fact, how would those same people who went to Pagano's church have reacted? Would they have said, "Good for those Second Amendment-loving Muslims. America needs more Muslims to be carrying guns?" Uh, probably not all of them would have said that. Some would have condemned the act: "You see what a violent people they are? Muslims even bring guns into their house of worship!"
But if it takes place in the New Bethel Church in Louisville, Kentucky, it's okay?
I had my Bar Mitzvah in a temple in Chicago which, coincidentally, was also called Beth El. Perhaps it's a geographic or a cultural thing, but I can't imagine anyone bringing guns to a service at the Beth El I went to. Maybe some people might sneak in half a sandwich, maybe someone would carry in a picture of that good-looking guy their daughter's engaged to, but a gun? No way.
So I guess for me it comes back to inappropriateness. In Hebrew, "Beth El" means, "House of God." It doesn't mean, "House of Guns" in any language.
Lloyd Garver has written for many television shows, ranging from "Sesame Street" to "Family Ties" to "Home Improvement" to "Frasier." He has also read many books, some of them in hardcover. He can be reached at lloydgarver@gmail.com. Check out his website at lloydgarver.com and his podcasts on iTunes.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"And all these guns make the pastor feel safer for his congregation. Obviously, it's an individual thing, but would you feel the calm and peace that you want in a house of worship, knowing that some of the people around you might be carrying hidden guns? "
Yes. You see, the difference between pro-gun and anti-gun people, is that we gun owners are not afraid of either inanimate objects or law-abiding citizens. We *trust* our fellow citizens, we don't fear them, or think them too violent or stupid to exercise their basic human rights.
You should go to church in Corsica sometime. For some reason the discharging of shotguns is part of Mass.
" Piece in the Post-Christian Era"
(with apologies to Thomas Merton)...
--
I loved your hilarious "Prince of Peace, not the Prince of Carrying A Piece" line, but I can't agree that political statements made in church are a state/church-separation issue, unless you can show me that other popular institutions--business, athletics, entertainment, and so on--are similarly constitutionally barred from making political statements. To my knowledge, they are not. And neither are churches.
The issue is strictly one of churches stepping outside of their tax-exempt status by playing an active political role--save for the tax-break issue, there is no issue. It has nothing to do with state/church separation or the First Amendment, save to the extent that the amendment in question protects freedom of expression for churches and church-goers from govt. tyranny. The separation principle, as expressed in the Constitution, instructs the govt. as to what not to do--namely, tromp on our freedom of speech, freedom to worship as we please, and ftwo additional items. It doesn't limit political expression at places of worship.
The reason that it's a violation for a church to do something like that is because of two factors:
One, the First Amendment, which specifically mentions religion, but not business.
Two, because the churches are running as a non-profit, which you mention.
I see. The First Amendment also mentions speech, so is freedom of speech similarly limited? Are you or I violating the First Amendment if we discuss politics?
Freedom of the press is mentioned, too--are newspapers barred from taking political stances?
If the First Amendment, in instructing the govt. not to infringe on the free exercise of religion, is banning churches from political involvement, then we have to presume it's doing the same by forbidding the govt. from intruding on freedom of the press, of speech, and so on.
Or we can read the amendment as penned and conclude that it's telling the govt. to back off in regard to the freedoms listed. In fact, the amendment tells the government what to do. It does not instruct churches, churchgoers, the press, or citizens in general. Unless you can show me where it states otherwise.
1. hence bad examples to youth are rare in america, which must be comfortable consideration to parents. to this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations(cristianity, judeism) is not only tolerated but respected and practiced. atheism is unknown there. infidelity (all other faiths) rare and secret so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an athiest or an infidel. and the divine being seems to have manifested his approbation of the mutual forbearance and kindness with with which the different sects treat each other. BY THE REMARKABLE PROSPERITY WITH WHICH HE HAS BEEN PLEASED TO FAVOR THE WHOLE COUNTRY".
information to those who would remove to america, Benjamin Franklin
4. our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John adams 1798
1. to the distinguished character of patriot it should be our highest glory to laud the more distinguished character of Christian George Washington 1778
1. religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all free governments and in all the combinations of human society john adams 1811
2. can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from god. Thomas Jefferson 1781
Whether it is the right thing to do to bring guns into a church has nothing to do with the 2d amendment, which certainly doesn't guarantee our well-armed public the right to take their arms anywhere. The distressing tendency the last few years, however, has been to open up more and more of public life to that right. Arizona and Florida allow concealed carry in bars, for all love. I can't believe local law enforcement let that happen.
But bringing violence into any religious place of worship strikes me as terribly misguided and terribly wrong and terribly much like the Taliban and other Muslim extremist groups.
We are turning into what we claim to hate as our enemy.
Plus ca change, plus ca meme.
No one ever learns from history - I swear to god.
I was just listening to the Thom Hartman show and he had the pastor on as a guest. The pastor was not only rude but tried to use misinterpretation and outright lies about the founding of our country and non-existent lessons from the bible to support his preaching about the second amendment in a church. Thom had the pastor on to discuss tax exemption for churchs who preach political ideologies and if they should keep that tax exempt status. I personal think that all Christians should be offended when people like this twist Christ's teachings and try to politicize them.
Next month - bring your mistress to church.
Failure of imagination (all too common on the right) that afflicts the left on this issue. "Because I don't do X, I can't imagine why anyone would want to do X."
Didn't see any mention of anyone being shot during this "gun to church" day. Hmmm. Seems odd, doesn't it? How could so many guns be in one place without murder breaking out? Very strange indeed.
Uh - still, highly inappropriate considering Dr. Tiller was recently murdered.
In a church.
By a man with a gun...
--
Just because someone wasn't shot in the one church on the one day where they were encouraged to bring guns to church, doesn't mean anything.
Until such time as MANY churches encourage guns MANY times over and we can generate a statistical information universe, we cannot KNOW whether that's a good thing or not.
On the other hand, when we see fewer guns in certain locations we see fewer shootings, although the ones that we see are worse on an individual basis....
Well, we don't have specific data for churches, but the obvious overall trend is "more guns, less crime." There's no apparent reason that would change in a church, so we can reasonably assume that a church filled with armed citizens is, like all similarly protected places, almost totally safe from crime or violence.
Blessed are the piecemakers?
"I spoke to Pastor Ken Pagano of the New Bethel Church, and he seemed like a nice,
intelligent guy who just happens to think guns are a very important American tradition,
an excellent means of self-defense, and are not out of place in a church."
He's right, you know. Guns are NOT out of place in a church.
When an organization, whether religious or governmental, promotes fear, then guns
become their obvious choices. That's why religions and governments work well together.
Religion promotes the fear of being sinful, and you must 'fight' your way into heaven, but
only THEY know the way in.
The government promotes fear that some other country is forever 'gonna try' to take your
life style away from you and only THEY can prevent that.
Neither respects the millions of people who don't go to church or the millions who could
care less what government does as long as troops don't come barging into their homes.
"As long as you believe that you dwell in a universe that is a threat, you must defend
yourself against it. As long as you believe that the self is flawed and that the race is
doomed and evil, you must defend yourself against yourself.
"Now, as long as you hold on to those beliefs, then you must indeed set up defenses."
it seems that you interpret the separation of church and state wrong also...it merely means that the state will not condone any one religion over another...i.e....no state sponsored church...
And the inverse, that a church will not get involved in the day to day operation of the state, nor try to influence how that day to day will come about (such as by endorsing candidates from the pulpit).
As for this church supporting the second amendment, that's completely acceptable.
I would like to say that Lloyd made a good point about how people would react if this had been a Muslim Imam in a Mosque....
i would like to see women wear whatever they want to a mosque including a gun....oh wait....
"And the inverse, that a church will not get involved in the day to day operation of the state...."
Not true at all. The First Amendment is an instruction to the govt., not to citizens or any of our popular institutions. Read it.
The sole issue is one of tax-exempt status--to wit, if churches operate outside of their tax-exemption-deserving status, they stand to lose that exemption. Otherwise, they can get as political as they please.
Anything else is an urban legend.
Yep, guns are an important American tradition right down to John Wayne westerns.
So's shooting each other "accidentally" ON PURPOSE.
It's all about THE FREEDOM TO SHOOT.
how many people were shot at this barbecue...about as many as are shot at gun shows....just how is it that you plan to defend yourself and family from a home invasion...or a rabid coyote...
My dogs work quite well for both. Nobody gets shot.
No, it's about the freedom to keep and bear arms. That is: to be safe and secure, well-protected from the danger of violent criminals; to be equal, unable to be oppressed by men, for women, or whites, for minorities, or even the healthy, for the infirm; to be free, unable to have your liberties taken from you by the government, to be oppressed by the standing army.
Self-defense, from all threats, civilian or government, foreign or domestic, is a basic human right, one that is unachievable without a gun. Sorry, but you will not succeed at depriving law-abiding citizens of their basic human rights out of your irrational fear.
I forgot, how about the Yom Kippur War? I recall that there were some very impressive defensive efforts up in the mountains by some very orthodox types.
We all know what happens when a shooter shows up at a church where the congregation is unarmed. Not too many examples where a member is carrying.
http://www.charlvanwyk.info/books_shootingback.html
Since when is being a victim a requirement for religion, or being defenseless for worship?
Je$u$ was a gunslinger.
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
